It's a tool kit. If you are really serious why don't you get some local people together to look at it. There must be lots of talent/skills in the village. Consultants only repeat back to you what you tell them.

Personally I think the village was built at a time when families didn't have 3/4 cars so it will never be solved. Ways to improve the situation would be to car share, improve public transport (decent bus and train services), make the shopkeepers park in the car park (surely they can afford the day parking fee) and introduce parking meters on the High Street (or maybe limit parking on the High Street to disabled people). A daily walk to the car park will improve peoples health. Introduce residents parking permits around the station. All others can walk/cycle and improve their health.

We need more and bigger speed bumps to slow cars down to a crawl and add interest to the overall flatness of the landscape. We should abolish all on-street parking inside the triangle between Hampton Court way, the river and the Portsmouth Road except for deliveries before 10.am and make the High St from Ashley Rd to the George and Dragon a pedestrian-only area with no vehicular access except for emergency vehicles.

People wishing to drive into (or out of) the village could pay a toll at attractive gates, either on entry or exit, with the proceeds going to all the good schemes for improving the village which have been suggested in the forum, adding a project to make Ashley Road car park three stories with a green roof on top

The only thing I agree on, is that there should be less cars on the street. I suggest again that station road and Giggs hill road should should have double yellows, this will push parking into Ashley car park which is what it is made for. Both these roads are the main arteries into the village.

One step at a time evergreen is the best policy but a bit of whimsical thinking is always welcome!

Lucky you Bluesky! There is currently a consultation on introducing double yellow lines on Giggs Hill Road - details here on page 3 (along with some other proposals in TD/LD:http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/661359/The-Dittons.pdf

Don't get too excited though, as they're only planned for the southern junction with Portsmouth Road. I don't think many of the residents of Giggs Hill Road and Station Road would be too happy about any additional double yellows.

Here's the full page on what is proposed: http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/parking/parking-news-and-updates/parking-news-and-updates-in-elmbridge/elmbridge-2013-parking-review

Maybe the residents of Station Road should be consulted again, with regards to double yellow lines and speak for themselves (apologies if you do indeed live on Station Road). As a SR resident I would love double yellow lines. The current poor flow of traffic in Station Road, although bringing out the abusive side of drivers, does mean very slow traffic. This is something that the speed humps did not totally deliver. So I would like double yellow lines and higher speed humps ( or a better way to slow traffic) in Station Road.

Is there a Civic Society here in Thames Ditton, I was about on the South Coast who when he died gave £100,000 for flowers in his town, he was a banker nonetheless! However I like the principle of bettering the village through donations like this

Double yellow lines would look great aswell, I agree that bumps just anger drivers - how about zechran (not sure spelling correct but a zig-zig) to slow traffic down. If someone is very generous add some trees and benches in the design, it would help with the walk back from the station.

The MOT test on our car has identified damage to the suspension caused by the humps. They have also disloged the panel under the engine. So more costly repairs again.....can anything be done to replace the humps with a less damaging alternative ?

As the condition of the humps deteriorates, they seem to inflict more punishment to the car. Given the cost of 'maintenance' to the humps, perhaps there is a cost effective alternative ?

NB We always drive over the humps at 20mph or slower - unlike vehicles that ignore them - could a case be made for replacement given the cost of maintenance, and that some driver, particularly vans and 4x4s, ignore the humps and still speed through the village ?

We residents are worst affected, as we must traverse the humps to make any journey from home - we cannot choose a different route.

I know these arguments have been rehearsed ad infinitum, but the larger speed 'tables' do seem to jolt the car less, while still reducing speed, so might they be a viable alternative ?

Could the RA now hold discussions with SCC to identify and implement the most appropriate alternative to the humps ?

The protector panel below the engine protector has been damaged by the humps: it will cost £200 + labour to replace it.

Then there will also be the substantial bill to repair damage to the suspension. Walton Road garage told us these repairs bills are typical for Thames Ditton residents.

Clearly the humps need to be removed as a matter of urgency and replaced by a more effective yet less damaging alternative. As the humps deteriorate they are causing increasing problems. Please can the association take this up with SCC on behalf of residents?

That's very annoying, feel for you. Don't understand how the protector panel has been damaged though, the suspension and its ground clearance should prevent it touching the ground.

i wouldnt be immediately unduly concerned. You need to know what this panel actually is (for sure) if a protector then what's the harm of it being damaged if you can't see it? It's done its job and presumably this will happen to its replacement? However, i would check whether it is an engine protector as it may well just be some sort of splash guard or a panel to smooth aerodynamics under the car or channel cool air to radiators or brakes, the latter being more important.

Does anyone else have documented damage and evidence that it is attributable to humps? If so, I suggest you raise it with SCC (and even claim for it - you can claim for pothole damage, why not for hump damage?), copying the material to Peter Hickman who will see whether there is sufficient weight of evidence to make a case for a better solution (even better, or better-maintained, humps)

SCC will only provide compensation if it can be proved that the damage was caused by one particular hump.

It is the under-engine splash guard that was damaged, by repeated bashing by the humps (as the local garage described it). They didn't recommend replacing the guard, as they said it would soon be damaged by the humps again.

That is in addition to repairs which will soon be needed to the suspension, identified by an MOT 'advisory'

I do hope the humps can be replaced with a better alternative as soon as possible. Even if they are maintained better, the damage will still occur.

Living on Station Road I would advocate for HIGHER humps that made every vehicle (vans, 4 x 4x etc) slow down - or risk harming their vehicle. The ones on Station Road are just not high enough and the new table ones on Summer Road might just as well not be there. I think the ones outside of Esher BR station are the ones we should have down Station Road. I find that if I go over speed bumps very slowly I do not damage my car. The higher they are the slower I go.

We drive over the humps below 20mph or less, but they still cause substantial damage to our car. Surely there must be some effective and viable alternative, and the needs for this must be all the stronger as the condition of the humps deteriorates....